DescentBB

I do not say this at all disparagingly, but Barry is the most subtle "conservative" on this board.

I could be wrong, but it has been my observation that he does not always come right out and say what has motivated him to post. If i had to take a guess, I would think this has much more to do with the sunsetting of the assault weapons ban and efforts to re-up it than it does with taxation.

B, am i even in the ballpark on this?

For the record, while I support banning assault weapons, I think the current sunsetting ban was ineffectual.

Wrong. You can sell your house tax free up to 500,000.00. When was the last time when YOU sold a car and had to pay a tax on it? The buyer pays a tax.

You're also sort of wrong. You can sell your house without paying cap gains if you've lived in it for 2 of the last 5 years(it doesn't have to be consecutively) and you're allowed 250k per person on title, up to 500k. If you're single and the only one on title and you have cap gains of 300k, you're taxed on 50k.

I do not say this at all disparagingly, but Barry is the most subtle "conservative" on this board.

What part of Barry is subtle? I'm asking, Pally. I don't quite understand what you mean, I guess.

If i had to take a guess, I would think this has much more to do with the sunsetting of the assault weapons ban and efforts to re-up it than it does with taxation.

Not really. The weapons ban will sunset but it will have no affect on California as the state law supercedes the federal law in this case. The only concern I have with the weapons ban is that when it sunsets it will be major roadblock for the antis concerning the rest of the U.S.

For the record, while I support banning assault weapons, I think the current sunsetting ban was ineffectual.

Without getting too far into the weapons ban, you're right, it was ineffectual.

Check your DBB private messages, Matt.

I just spent over an hour typing out a message on taxes and freedoms that was deleted. I'm not going to re-type it. If you're satisfied with all the taxes, permits, surcharges, etc that you pay.. groovy.

Oh by the way. There is no capital gains tax on the sale of your primary residence in Canada. No matter how much you made. No inheritance tax either.
(Okay, so you don't get to deduct your mortgage interest from your income I'll grant you that.)

You're quite right Woodchip, if you've been around awhile you have a better perspective on the current situation. Being an old fart has to be worth something. (Excuse me while I pull my pant's waist up around my armpits and head to Arizona for the winter.)

Ford Prefect(Did you intentionally mis-spell that?),
I don't think age has anything to do with perspective. It's a matter of doing some figuring and a small bit of independent thinking.
I'm amazed because I've posted a topic similar to this elsewhere and received about the same ratio of people who agree to those who don't. It seems the people who agree are hip to their rights and the ones who don't are not. I didn't pay much attention to age, however.
Now that you mention it, I'm wondering if the older folks have been taught through experience as a youngster that the governement is your friend and they are not out to take adavantage. I truly believe motivations are different today than they were even 30 years ago.

B-

OFF TOPIC:

Ford Prefect (the character) was named after Ford Prefect (the car). I assume our own Ford Prefect is simply continuing the tradition...

Alrighty,
thanks for that, Lothar. I was curious..

Yes Ford Prefect was an alien character in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe. Since the world was clearly set up for the convienience of the automobile he assumed they were the dominant species and so to blend in he took the most common name. The author was of course British, if he had been American I think I would be named Dodge Caravan.

If you think that the members of the counter-culture of the late 60s and early to mid 70s thought that government was their friend then you have a whole lot of research to do my friend.
Nowadays you don't even have a counter-culture or a "Movement" as it was known then. You don't realize how divided North America and particularly the U.S. was during that period. Riots in the street were not uncommon. Riots that make the scuffle in Seattle look like a tea party. People were beaten into bloody pulp by police that boasted BEFORE demonstrations took place that they were going to "bust some hippy heads" and then did so regardless of the legality of the protest. The hatred between both sides was intense.

When those people were shot at Kent State the photo of a young woman who was walking between classes and ended up, hands bloodied by the corpse of a stranger, was front page news.
Her parents recieved death threats from strangers that looked up their phone number to tell them that "all those damn hippies should have been shot" and "too bad they missed you daughter". She was not a part of the demonstration just a passerby like the victim she was photographed trying to help.

People that did not want to serve in Viet Nam left their home and family forever, moved to Canada, Australia, Britain. While others proudly doned uniform and went overseas, and died by the thousands or came back drug addicted or physicaly or mentaly damaged. How do you think that played out when their parents lived side by side on the same block?

And now Robert MacNamara, one of the chief proponents of the war says it was "a mistake". Hell you could have gotten that information at any time Robert if you had asked around.

And the war was just one topics of contention. Free Love, Drugs, hair length, clothing styles, music, everything seemed designed for maximum divergence from the generation before and to cause maxumum distress amoung the older.

Pigs like Richard Daley OWNED cities like Chicago and weren't going to let anyone who was not a "right thinking American" walk around his streets and protest the war. Learn something about the riots at the DNC in 1968.

The Black Panthers, The Nation of Islam, The Simbionese Liberation Army, Yippies, all trying to change the status quo many advocating violence.

Before that there was the Civil Rights Movement. Open defiance of authority, mass demonstrations and bloody, distructive riots in many major cities. Tanks on the streets of American cities trying to restore order.

Presidents and other political figures assasinated. Shot dead, not just threatened with impeachment or mocked on the Late Show by Jay Leno. John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Malcom X, Martin Luther King.

Today may seem like there is a strong division in the U.S. between the right and left but by comparison both sides are close together and well to the right of the old center.

More like Dodge Charger.

Good post Ford. The 60's generation was the group that really made us think about our civil liberties. Made us think that our govt. was not the responsible entity that they tried to portray.
While I don't condone the jackbooted way that Waco and Ruby Ridge were handled, I still think our liberties are better today than they were in the fifties and sixties.

oh man you are pro iraq war but you are concerned about Waco? LOL! Conservative whackjob

Woodchip,
We do not have the same liberties we did 30 years ago, period. The ability to remove those freedoms has been stacking against us and that's really what I'm concerned about. At this point they haven't excercised those powers yet, but why do they want those powers if they have no intention of using them?

Since the Patriot Act was mentioned, here's a few new powers that violate our civil rights.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

While some may argue that the PA wasn't intended to violate the average citizens rights, they have given themselves the ability and they sold it to you under the disguise of your own safety. I am no safer because of the PA and niether are you. Mark my word, in time, it will be used to put a stop to activities that the government doesn't approve of and the victim will be sold to the public as a threat to national security. They say those four words and your rights are gone.
Wow! I sure feel safe now.

B-

In time, FP, the Patriot Act will probably be overturned/limited in its powers. I don't understand why everyone is so worked up about it. Do a few of its provisions cross lines established in the Bill of Rights? Probably. Will these provisions stand up over time? Probably not. The Supreme Court, I believe, has already ruled that detaining individuals without due cause is unconstitutional. If the case has not been decided yet, I am almost positive that this is how they will rule. A few of the other provisions you mention will also come up for review. I'm not the biggest fan of the court system and how so many judges seem to be "legislating from the bench," but the Patriot Act represents the truest expression of the American judiciary: to declare the constitutionality of a law based on the actual text of the Constitution. See, this is why the Founders created separate branches of government with checks and balances. If one oversteps its bounds, the others can contain it. I think you'll find that this will soon be the case of the Patriot Act. Personally, I feel that the Patriot Act was passed with good intentions, and that the government would not go so far with its provisions as so many of you seem to fear. At the same time, however, I recognize that some parts of it are questionable. Let the Court sort it out.

One more thing: the Patriot Act is not the first example of a law of questionable compatibility with the Bill of Rights. Similar laws were passed during both World Wars. The most notorious of this, and obviously unconstitutional and morally wrong, was the Japanese interment, but there have been others with lesser effect. These laws are often repealed/allowed to expire after the said time of conflict is over. I view the Patriot Act as a natural response to a catastrophic attack, along the lines of Pearl Harbor. During those times, people tend to err on the side of security rather than liberty. (Please do not re-post the Franklin quote; I've heard it many times .) Eventually, things will start to swing the other way again. Remember, if Bush is a dictator for passing the Patriot Act, you'd have to call Wilson and Roosevelt dictators as well.

Do you feel safer, TopGun?

Fusion pimp wrote:

Fusion pimp wrote:FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

Well duh! Where do you think the muslum terrorii organise and plan their attacks?

Fusion pimp wrote:FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

Ya so? The govt. wants to detain middle eastern types with questionable backgrounds...sounds good to me.

Fusion pimp wrote:FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

You don't suppose the govt. may not want terroist inadvertantly warned by some ditzey librarian?

Fusion pimp wrote:RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

Cool, considering the terrorist put in jail may want to pass messages to the outside via their mouth piece.

Fusion pimp wrote:FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

And so? The americans in question prolly have contacts with extremist types and should have these things done to them.

Fusion pimp wrote:RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

Again, 99.99% of the time these americans are muslum and have good indications they are involved in terrorist activities.

Fusion pimp wrote:RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

See above

Fusion pimp wrote:While some may argue that the PA wasn't intended to violate the average citizens rights, they have given themselves the ability and they sold it to you under the disguise of your own safety. I am no safer because of the PA and niether are you. Mark my word, in time, it will be used to put a stop to activities that the government doesn't approve of and the victim will be sold to the public as a threat to national security. They say those four words and your rights are gone.
Wow! I sure feel safe now.

You should. If the PA was in place prior to 9/11...who knows if 9/11 would have happened. As to the PA being used in other areas. there are just too many watch dog groups that would hang the dirty linen out on a public clothes line

You're right, sorry.

B-